State primary and grammar without tuition

[jollybloodyhockeysticks]

Just wondering if anyone can share their experiences. Do you have a child who went to a state primary and passed the 11+ without tutoring? Is it imperative to get tutoring for the 11+ if your child is naturally academically bright and excelling in a state primary? Tia x

But that's the moral dilemma isn't it.

We all give our children an unfair advantage to a certain extent. Whether that's taking them to the library, making sure their homework is done, giving them a good breakfast or having a National Trust membership ().

I don't know what the answer is as every parent wants to do what they think is right for their child based on their own preconceptions.

The system isn't fair but none of it is.

There must be plenty of naturally gifted sports people whose parents never bothered to take them to training.

I too wish the playing fields were more level, but in the mean time you have to deal with the system as it is. You don't need to pay tutors when there is so much information on the internet of what can be done at home. I think a more interesting question than how can we make the 11+ tutor proof, would be what is preventing sections of society accessing the required learning for their children?

I also agree with Lepetit's point of not teaching to the test for years, but rather teaching academic subjects like English or maths, for the love of learning rather than to pass the test. Being better prepared for the test will then be a bonus of this.

But Roots music,sports and dance provision isn't a level playing field either.

No - it's not a level playing field, I agree. Even more so than anything else as for most children the ONLY way of learning an instrument is to pay for private lessons and it costs she'd loads.

However, being proficient in an instrument makes very little difference in relation to a child's life chances. It might give a marginal edge in relation to university applications but only in the context of an application which was otherwise strong.

In relation to school places at 11 it doesn't help much. The state schools that offer music places are usually pretty good at offering on the basis of potential rather than prior learning. At least that's the case at the two schools where ds applied for a music place.

Just - no test exists or can be created which identifies innate talent in a child and negates parent input. In fact any process which requires parents to opt in for a test on behalf of a child is immediately discriminatory. The only way to stop this is to leave the selection procedures up to primaries rather than parents, and for grammar schools to be required to take proportionate numbers of children from private school.

"But that's the moral dilemma isn't it.

We all give our children an unfair advantage to a certain extent"

Except we don't.

And the role if the state is to try to create a fair society.

Every day I see disadvantaged children at my dc's school who are completely and totally left behind because of the way our system of school selection works. It's absolutely and completely unacceptable that poor children and children with special needs end up being clustered together in disproportionate numbers in the secondary schools rejected by the middle classes. Poor people don't don't choose failing and low achieving schools for their children, they just end up with them by default because they are unable to play the system as better educated people are. It really, really stinks.

"Secondary schools rejected by the middle classes" this is more often facilitated by property.

So the middle classes shouldn't be able to buy where they choose,send their dc to the school of their choice or push them either by tutoring them themselves or by outsourcing. However the rich can continue to send their kids to the best the private sector has to offer,with all the advantages and contacts that brings.

And actually being good at music,dance or sport can be hugely beneficial.Not withstanding that most successful musicians,footballers and Olympic champions will have had shedloads of money,time and parental involvement spent on enabling their careers which I'm sure many poorer kids would love the chance to have.Why is that ok but parents putting time and money into their kids brains not ok?

Actually the real answer is a proper comprehensive system where all schools are good schools. Where people don't have to fight for places, or pay £50k for a house in catchment.

But this involves mass investment, a belief in teachers who are paid competitive salaries and respected. The playing field can also be flattened a little more if all their parents were paid a decent wage and there were enough job opportunities for people at every level to give them something to aim towards.

However it's far easier to squeeze funding and watch the middle classes trample over each other to do the best for their children.

The glory days of grammar schools was actually nothing to do with selection. It was actually more to do with massive expansion of the opportunities for white collar management which allowed many working class kids to move out of manual labour. And the secondary modern kids weren't 'written off' they had trades, apprenticeships and high employment levels.

However, all of this doesn't help the question of how much help & support you should be giving your children.

"Actually the real answer is a proper comprehensive system where all schools are good schools. Where people don't have to fight for places, or pay £50k for a house in catchment."

I'd like to think this is the case, but actually I think we are such a class ridden countries that there are people who will always reject schools who accept large numbers of disadvantaged children as being 'rough' and unsuitable for their own children, regardless of the quality of the teaching.

I see this at DD's comprehensive, which gets excellent results for high achieving pupils, has good arts and excellent STEM provision, but is rejected by many m/c local parents in preference for a private school half a mile down the road.

Most of the schools in my borough select by 'fair banding' processes, and the good comprehensive my son may get a place at selects by a lottery. I'm hoping that more schools will do this in future, as it gets around many of the problems associated with overpriced catchments.

"So the middle classes shouldn't be able to buy where they choose,send their dc to the school of their choice or push them either by tutoring them themselves or by outsourcing. However the rich can continue to send their kids to the best the private sector has to offer,with all the advantages and contacts that brings."

You've got a weird sort of persecution complex. I've not made any sort of case for 'banning' tutoring or stopping people buying houses where ever they wish. Nobody has. Nobody is suggesting banning anything or stopping anything.

I'm just making a case for structural changes in the way selection is done at the end of primary in order to improve the chances of those children who are currently at the bottom of the pile, and who I think are seriously disadvantaged by the way the system works. Incidentally, I don't include my own children in this group.

"And actually being good at music,dance or sport can be hugely beneficial."

"Why is that ok but parents putting time and money into their kids brains not ok?"

Who has said it's 'ok'? It's NOT ok! I think state schools should offer better provision for music, sport and art. I think it's appalling and deeply unfair that the only children who have a chance to properly learn to play a musical instrument are those whose parents can afford to shell out £35 an hour for individual tuition.

If parents are rejecting schools for private they're rich not middle class.Our town is full of m/c families with plenty of professions,very few can afford private.

The area you describe must be full of wealthy parents many of whom may not have academic kids. High achieving kids will often do well in comps,maybe said comp doesn't serve the lower groups well,maybe behaviour isn't hot.Who knows,I don't think you can make assumptions on hundreds of parents you don't actually know.

"If parents are rejecting schools for private they're rich not middle class.Our town is full of m/c families with plenty of professions,very few can afford private."

Rich?

Two middling professional salaries for a one child family would allow for private school fees - after all, many families in this situation pay nursery fees of 12K a month.

M/c covers a huge breadth,most families have 1 more than one dc.

These days you have to choose property or lifestyle.Very few have money for a decent house and fees hence the private schools struggling at the moment. Very few families with two bog standard professionals would have the spare cash for one set of fees in a good private school let alone two. I know only one and they are struggling and pulling their dc out.

12k a month for nursery- where the hell are they going?Baby Eton?

They certainly need some practice to familiarise themselves with the type of questions. They don't necessarily need to do a lot and it doesn't have to be a private tutor - though that partly depends on how confident you are yourself. I think the returns to more and more preparation start to diminish quite quickly. My daughter got a place at at Kendrick and son probably has a place at Reading boys. In both cases they just practiced at home in the 3 weeks before the test. DS was less than keen so probably only did 5 hours total.

It has to be said that most children preparing for these super selectively have a tutor and most put in more hours. Doesn't necessarily mean they pass though!

If we hadn't been happy with the alternatives then I may have taken it more seriously. Don't think I would ever have bothered with a tutor but I'm quite comfortable with these tests myself.

Also nursery is for a very short period,by the time secondary school is near most families would be financially crippled as the fall out of shelling money out like that for years would accumulate.

I do know m/c families who can afford to send (one or two) children to private school, just. I also know some who can't, or would rather not as it would be a big stretch. m/c covers a wiiiiiide range of incomes!

I think maybe the competition for grammars has increased so much over last 10 years because fewer people can afford private.

Those parents who in the past would rather go private are now really feeling the extra fees, particularly for more than one child

If a child is trying to get into grammar of say an intake of 150, they do not have to get the highest score, they just have to make sure they get higher than the 150th child. Of course preparation can alter their placing in the exam.

"Even if they'd had zero prep they would have still out performed an average ability child."

But that's not the point.

There are enough 'clever' children to fill most grammars three times over.

It's not about children who aren't that bright getting into grammars with loads of tutoring.

It's about bright children who've had tutoring plus regular parental input at home in relation to reading, writing and maths practice, trumping equally bright and probably some brighter children who've had none.

You seem utterly convinced that every child who is at grammar school has had tutoring (which is not the case) and further that your child is brighter than those who passed the 11+ he sat. Which may or may not be true - but is irrelevant since the 11+ -especially for superselectives - isn't about who is the brightest child or who has the most potential but which children are best suited to be educated at those particular schools. Which is a different thing entirely. At superselectives kids are expected to hit the ground running. They are expected to already be at a certain level and to be, as far as is possible for an 11 year old, independent learners. Not being that sort of person doesn't mean you're not bright. The way superselectives approach things really doesn't suit everyone. But it has nothing to do with brightness (or, not much) and everything to do with learning style.

Soooooo you want a scheme that roots out the kids who have parents that talk to their dc a lot,read to their dc,limit screen time,provide books,provide music lessons(music aids concentration so clearly an unfair advantage),model good writing,ensure tables are learnt and dc heard to read......

How?